I think the main thing here is that the original was such a flop that they don’t want to repeat the error.
It’s a hard sell to take an unsuccessful film (with admittedly a good underlying story/concept), and then convince the suits that this time will be different because reasons.
When they can remake an old hit, even if it’s done poorly, most people will want to see it for themselves, if for no other reason than to join in on the chorus of hate. Those ticket sales are still sales. So whether people like it or not, they stand a good chance to turn a reasonable profit.
Meanwhile, films that did poorly, whether due to script issues, or poor execution of the underlying material or whatever, people will be more willing to let it pass them by unless they have it on his authority that it’s good. Of course, not everyone will think this way, but it’s the basis for judgement for most.
Additionally, by remaking a movie they can renew their copyright on the film, which is why, I believe that many of the older films are getting unnecessary remakes and sequels. Even if it’s bad, it locks them in on copyrights for a while longer; so if they want to continue to profit from the property, whether through licensing, promos, merchandise, whatever, they can. The base point being: does anyone want to license this property? If not, the suits wouldn’t care as much if the copyright expires.
Think about something like star wars. It had a pretty strong following at the first three films, even decades after the release, it was very likely that there were ongoing licensing deals. So to renew the copy rights, they remastered and rereleased it to theatres. Even if it flopped, it would have ensured they can continue their licensing deals for years to come. Since it didn’t, they decided instead to expand the franchise and see if they can get more money from it, and they did. Which is how we ended up with the sequels and several spin off shows.
Simply put, it’s just too risky to invest more money into properties to renew copyright when there’s no interest in licensing the content in the first place. Many of the production companies are happy to let a property rot while they’re collecting paycheques on licensing. It’s all about the numbers.
I get it, but I still adore that book either way. It isn’t going to stop me wanting to see a well played Jonnie Goodboy Tyler and Terl. Orson Scott Card is an asshole too, but I still enjoy reading some of his books.
I didn’t mind the dark tower movie before since I knew nothing about the book series. I’m on Wizard and Glass now though and in hindsight… That movie was absolute trash and pretty offensive to the fanbase.
If you expected LOTR quality from the hobbit, that’s simply never going to happen. Watch the LOTR behind the scenes…movies will never be made in that fashion ever again and it’s very sad
Well basically, that’s not how you make money. You don’t need this level of effort to pull big viewership anymore. You can just use CGI etc etc to cut costs. Honestly just watch the LOTR behind the scenes, it made me sad that such production is never going to happen again.
There are still filmmakers making real art, but not at such a large scale as LOTR. We still have David Lynch, and Robert Eggers is making modern masterpieces, but such guys aren’t going to be given the money and resources to make something as epic as LOTR. That era of filmmaking is gone and probably never going to return.
I hear what your saying. You are correct. Buuuut, I agree with OP too.
Arguably, I would say do both. Partly for the academic side and partly because a lot of ideas exist that could do with some TLC.
A version of After Earth that’s less awkward maybe?
I recently saw Iron Mask, a not amazing martial arts movie where Jackie Chan fights Arnold Schwarzenegger. That’s the best part of the movie by far but if you could do more with that as an idea? Especially paying for more than one fight scene.
Though, struggling to think of examples as my movie knowledge isn’t too extensive. And it can be tricky to deal with ‘didn’t work but had potential’ and ‘cult classic/niche appeal’. Like I think the Five Nights At Freddie’s movie is a mess but a really entertaining mess that I’m not certain how to ‘fix’ without removing from the gonzo camp they landed on, that I then liked.
I do love that Sean Connery just never did accents. Irish cop in Chicago? Spanish via Egypt in Scotland? Soviet sub captain? All suspiciously scotch sounding apparently, but he was a big enough star that no one seems to have really minded, and the performances were always top-notch.
The visuals were great, and the film has a hypnotic fever dream feel to it. Not sure it can be called a"good" film, but it’s extremy entertaining.
The new film has more gravitas and is much more loyal to the book, but it also doesn’t add anything to the book and is just less interesting to watch (for me it was down right boring). I think it over-corrected the Lynch version.
In my eyes, SFX still stands the test of time. Sure you can see CGI is shit, but models and custom made suits just scream style and dystopian nightmare. I love it and still watch it from time to time. Didn’t watch the new one as it ads nothing to the story, at least from what I heard.
Indeed the new one, in attempting to the faithful to the book, but minus any of the critical inner monologue, just manages to be bland on a big budget.
I love the campy 84 version, even if it departed wildly from the text. The characters were colourful, over the top, memorable. Current version everyone’s a slightly different dark haired man in a dusty suit. Give me some dated CGI and theatrics any day.
Same. I still happily rewatch Sci-Fi movies from 80s and 90s. Those were the days. Today CGI has advanced much but it seems directing and world building have taken a back seat.
Add comment